The recent letter published by The Lancet, “An open letter to the people of Gaza” is as much an insult to the integrity of this scientific journal as it is to Israeli doctors, scientists and academics. The letter, by Manduca et al on behalf of 24 signatories, denounces over and over the “aggression of Israel in Gaza”, “Israel’s crimes against humanity” and the “massacre in Gaza”. Yet, in this 1,483 word rant against Israel, conspicuously absent is any reference whatsoever to the continuous rocket fire by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, aimed specifically at civilian populations in Israel. Not one word mentions that two thirds of Israel’s population is under the continual threat of thousands of civilian-targeted rockets; not just in this operation, but since Israel evacuated Gaza in 2006.

Hamas has been offered a handful of ceasefires; in fact, Hamas was offered an array of opportunities to de-escalate before the operation began, to prevent the massive, horrific and needless loss of life. Moreover, at the time of writing, Hamas cynically abused an agreed upon humanitarian ceasefire to launch rockets, mortars and a suicide bomber so that they could abduct an Israeli soldier. But the authors didn’t see any of this behaviour as being relevant information to include. Hamas is not interested in ceasefires, because as Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea pointed out, Hamas “wins” with casualties on either side; with Israeli casualties it is a Hamas achievement, and with Gazan casualties the death toll is cynically used to vie for international sympathy.

A variety of tactics showcases the modus operandi that characterises this terrorist organisation. For example, there is the hiding of rockets in United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) schools, hospitals and mosques. Then there is the firing of rockets on Israeli towns and cities from deep within densely populated Gazan civilian areas, and the ordering of Gazan citizens to remain in their homes despite being warned by Israel of imminent danger. The Washington Times article entitled “Hamas orders civilians to die in Israeli air strikes” explains the way that Hamas cynically uses its own people as human shields. And yet there is not a word of condemnation from the authors of the letter.

Yes, while accusing Israel of crimes against humanity, the authors conveniently forget to mention that Hamas is a bona fide terrorist organisation whose charter maintains that “the struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious” (please note: Jews, not Israelis) ,and calls for the establishment of an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel and the obliteration of the State of Israel. I would like to remind the authors of this letter that Hamas and other terror groups do not accept Israel’s right to exist, and the only solution they are interested in is death, destruction and martyrdom.

As for the repeated claims by the authors that Israel and Egypt have blockaded Gaza since 2006, I will refer to Haaretz journalist Chemi Shalev’s incisive article on the “Top 6 reasons why I hate Hamas”:

Because, given a game-changing opportunity as the first truly if not wholly independent Palestinian regime with imperfect but nonetheless genuine autonomy, Hamas not only failed to carry out the first obligation of a government to work for the betterment of its people, but also squandered a chance to turn Gaza into a springboard for complete Palestinian independence in the West Bank and Gaza along the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

But Hamas is not interested in a two-state solution; it is the obliteration of Israel that is its declared goal. And yet the authors of this letter harp on the economic difficulties of Gazans, scarcity of gasoline, power, building materials and the sewage problems. Again, as noted by Shalev:

If Hamas had devoted the eight years that it has been in power since Israel’s disengagement to building a prosperous and thriving Gaza, it would not only have improved the lives of Palestinians but would have provided a powerful and irresistible argument for further Israeli withdrawals and greater Palestinian empowerment. Instead, by making Gaza into a rocket-launching, tunnel-digging, terrorist-training and hatred-spewing garrison state, Hamas turned Israelis and many of their supporters abroad against further concessions and thus condemned Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to many more years of oppression and despair.

Another contention by the authors is that the Israeli occupation of the West Bank is the source of the entire problem. I agree entirely with Shalev’s viewpoint that a viable two-state solution is the only possible way forward. However, over the last two decades there were a number of proposals for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were nearly signed – most notably at the Camp David Summit between Israeli prime minister Barak and Palestinian Authority president Arafat – but this was ultimately rejected by the Palestinian side. President Clinton, who made every effort to broker the agreement, blamed Arafat, who never even bothered to make a counter offer:

I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realised in a just and lasting peace.

So while the present Israeli government may have been dragging its feet in negotiations, the Palestinian side is at least as responsible for the failure to arrive at a two-state solution and the ensuing Israeli control of the West Bank. In any case, the rate and/or progress of negotiations does not give the right to Hamas to fire rockets indiscriminately at Israeli population centres. And given their charter, it is doubtful that such an agreement would ever appease this terror organisation in any case.

The letter blames Israeli doctors, scientists and academics for their “complicity with the Israeli aggression”, noting that only 5% of this group has signed an appeal to stop the military operation in Gaza. Israel is a democracy, so there will always be a range of viewpoints, and people are free to express them. However, of those 95% who have not appealed to stop the operation, I am certain that the vast majority of these educated people would like to see peace coupled with a fair two-state solution. In fact, many academics and scholars number among Israel’s Peace Now movement, which strongly supports a two-state solution.

The fact that these prominent Israelis support this operation in such high numbers highlights what the authors of the letter have failed to point out: Israelis see the constant barrage of rockets on their civilian populations as an existential threat and intolerable situation that cannot be countenanced. Israeli doctors, academics and scientists, and the vast majority of Israelis are deeply saddened by the death toll and humanitarian suffering in Gaza; no one can remain indifferent to the horrific situation. But the responsibility for the tragedy lies squarely on Hamas’s shoulders. No matter what one’s political outlook is, when rockets are indiscriminately threatening one’s family day after day, even those who are accustomed to doing everything to save lives understand that force must be used to stop terror.

Even more ironic is that Israeli doctors are risking their lives in a field hospital erected outside Gaza to treat injured Palestinian civilians. Although not widely publicised in international news, for months Israeli hospitals have been absorbing and treating many of the victims of the Syrian civil war.

In their letter, Manduca et al have raised only a highly select subset of points relating to the Hamas-Israel conflict, and entirely ignored the elephant in the room. I can only assume that these facts do not resonate with their political opinions, and thus have been cynically omitted. For a scientist, this would be akin to “cherry-picking’”; the practice of selectively representing only data that support one’s hypothesis. I hope that scientists, doctors, academics and especially medical and scientific journals will distance themselves from such unethical practice.